I followed his advice and had Angel's rear ones removed when I had her spayed at a year old - what a nightmare. It turns out although they seemed to only be attached by ligaments and skin, they were actually very attached, and it was complicated taking them off. It's a painful surgery, her recovery was long, and she had complications. In hindsight, I should have left them alone.

Gage's I've left, even though the vet still wants to take them off. They don't bother him in the least, although he sometimes catches up his front ones during rough play and tears the nail a bit. Unless you're going in heavy brush a lot, I wouldn't bother, and even then, you can tape them. But that's JMO.

My girl shadow(great pyrenees/lab mix) still has her declaws and her rear ones are very floppy and loose. but I won't have them removed.
She's almost 3 years old now and they haven't caused her a single problem.

rufus had one removed because it was just skin attaching it, and he kept catching it and screaming. the other one is still on as it was attached by bone and not skin. when he was neutered i had the one dewclaw rear removed. he healed fine, no problems

Rufus got his back dewclaw stuck in the shrubbery in the yard, he had gone to investigate a rabbit and got stuck, hence the screaming/yelping. the one that got stuck was the skin one, and at 5 months old he was the biggest baby about everything. so i decided to have the one removed as it was strictly skin attached per the xrays i had taken. the other rear dewclaw was attached by bone and not just skin, so i got some opinions from a couple of different people and 3 vets and decided to leave that one attached. i should have had it removed too at the same time, but i didnt and now regret it. (its just funny to look at one rear dewclaw)

1. fully attached with bone
2. partially attached with bone
3. not attached at all with bone
4. no bone apparent at all

If you have an active dog with 3 or 4 then you should probably have them taken off. If it is done when the dog is very young it is no big deal. Any removal of anything from an adult dog's body is major surgery, it's not the same with puppies.

Ruby's were gone when we bought her.

Connor has fully attached dew claws, and he uses them for holding on and for scratching the crap out of you when you play with him.

I have seen two dew claws torn. One was a big, nasty wound. Most recently, my parent's friend's toy poodle lost hers. They told me they thought she hurt her leg, and I looked at the claw and it was torn 'upwards' and bleeding. I told her to bring her to the vet. The next weekend when I saw them, they said that the claw was just gone the day after I saw them - it had torn off completely. Gross.

Very loosly attached ones should be removed, weither they are on the front or the back. If they are fully attached then let them be - front or back.

those dew claws are really strange little things arent they? im fascinated by them and by those, uh extra pad thingies that pups have up higher on their legs (that the scientific description for it ) my pup loves to gnaw on those pads.

pitbulliest wrote:Some people listen to their vets too much..

If you have a great vet, hey all the better for you...but please..they're not gods....... ...... ....... yeah this is getting a little off topic.. forget it

i totally agree with this. there is allways a second opinion. same thing with human doctors. everything cant allways be diagnosed properly. its a good thing to question your health care provider if you have any concerns.

Watch your dog, they use them like thumbs. Mine use theirs all of the time with a great deal of dexterity. Daisy cleans her eyes with hers, uses them alomst exclusively to hold her toys and bones. I wouldn't have them removed ever unless it's a problem. Also, my dog's are firmly attached.